A Platform of Compassion
Marianne Thieme is a Dutch politician, and chair and founder of the Party for Animals (Partij voor de Dieren). She spoke to Spectrum about the philosophy behind her political party and what she hopes to accomplish.
Marianne Thieme
Marianne Thieme is a Dutch politician, animal activist and publicist. She is the chair and political leader of the first animal rights party in history that is represented in a national parliament. She is also a Seventh-day Adventist. Since last November, her Party for the Animals has won two seats in the Dutch National Parliament, nine seats in the Dutch Provincial Governments and one seat in the Dutch Senate.
Thieme has been voted Political Talent of the Year 2006 by the Dutch parliamentary press, Most Spicy Politician by women’s magazine Viva and Most Influential Woman for Farmer’s Incomes by the leading Dutch magazine on agriculture. Marianne has published a book on animal rights (The Animal’s Century) and dozens of articles in Dutch national and regional newspapers on factory farming, hunting, animal testing, bird flu, ritual slaughtering, fur, fisheries and vegetarianism.
Marianne Thieme spoke to Spectrum about the philosophy behind her political party and what she hopes to accomplish.
Q: Have you always been interested in the welfare of animals? What led you to take an interest in this cause?
A: My parents were very animal-friendly and I was raised with a respect for nature. I was born in a village in the part of Holland where factory farming is very big, and as a child I wondered where all the animals I had seen in my children’s books were going. When I saw a documentary on Dutch television about the lives of our cows, I decided not to eat animals anymore.
Q: How did the Party for the Animals get started? What contributed to the formation of the party?
A: On November 22 2006 a historical breakthrough was achieved in the struggle for animal rights. For the first time ever, 180,000 voters elected members of a Party for the Animals to a national parliament. With two seats, we achieved a victory, which has been received with great acclaim by champions for animal rights across the globe. Similar animal parties have already been launched or are being set up in other countries.
We are on the threshold of an unstoppable march towards giving animals a voice and a place in our legal system. This march is the result of a like-mindedness, which transcends status, political preference and religious belief, and allows everyone to contribute to the ending of this moral blind spot that has dominated our society for decades.
In the Netherlands, animal suffering is often hidden from view, or we simply do not want to acknowledge it. Each year in this country, millions of factory farmed animals are sent to slaughter after living short and miserable lives, and millions of minks are killed for their fur. More than a hundred thousand dogs and cats are dumped in shelters, and €500 million is spent on animal experimentation every year.
Leaving aside these images of horror, let us look towards a more positive future: in 50 years we will not even be able to conceive of the fact that animals did not have rights at the start of the millennium. The next generation will look back in shame at how their ancestors treated animals with such a lack of respect, just as we now look back with shame at the role that the Netherlands played in the slave trade.
Q: What were your immediate goals and expectations as you formed the party?
A: During the mid-1990s, a favorable political climate for animals emerged. For the first time in history, there was a more or less animal-friendly majority in parliament. This came about by accident as more progressive parties won power from the conservatives.
Nonetheless, animal welfare remained a side issue for many parties, but together the Socialist Party, Green Left, the Labour Party D66 and the Christian Union formed an animal-friendly parliamentary majority.
But the so-called animal friendly parties made it clear that one could not do the impossible, and that not too much should be expected of them. The protection of animal rights featured in their party manifestos, but clearly was not a priority.
Meanwhile, other parties managed to even reverse and dismantle animal welfare policies in parliament.
Animals became objects once again, which were only intended to quell the appetite and serve the economic purposes of people.
This is why the plan to set up a Party for the Animals was hatched in late 2002. It was set up initially as a reminder to the parliamentary parties about the many good intentions set down in their manifestos. And, naturally, to speed up the implementation of such plans.
We hoped that breathing down the necks of the existing parties would finally lead to justice being done for animals. This was essential at a time when the political and social agenda was dominated by issues such as security and integration, and standing up for animal rights was contemptuously regarded as a subversive activity that showed weakness rather than strength.
That the strategy worked became immediately evident when the plans for the party were launched and we were able to participate in the elections.
Overnight, Green Left set out its new top ten election priorities, which suddenly included animal welfare, while previously animal welfare did not even make it into the top 50 of the party's main concerns.
Other parties – albeit to a lesser extent – also jumped on the bandwagon after we established the Party for the Animals. They realized that animal welfare was becoming an increasingly important issue for the electorate.
One party even wrote words into its election song letting people know that animals were more than just a piece of meat!
In the months following November 2002, when a number of people hit on the idea of setting up a political party for the interests of animal welfare, we had a lot to accomplish. In two months, €11,250 had to be raised to pay for the election deposit and a good candidate list and adequate party manifesto had to be put together. We did not want to be just a one-issue party, yet the manifesto should also not get bogged down in the broad spectrum of viewpoints and issues that had little to do with animal welfare.
We tried to make it clear in press releases and opinion articles that we at the very least should be seen as a light-hearted initiative without prospects.
It was only on the election night itself that people suddenly stopped contemptuously laughing off our attempt to make a stand for animals. During the broadcast of the election results, to everyone's surprise it became clear that Party for the Animals had scored high!
Our ambition to put animals on the agenda was achieved, but we had to go further. We knew that if the animal protectionists in the existing parliamentary parties could transform themselves into a group that was even half as fanatical and tenacious as the politicians that the factory farmers bring into play to defend the interests of intensive farming, then it would not take long for the advantage to be decided in the favor of the animals.
We still have to push hard for this in our new role as parliamentarians. The Party for the Animal's role will be to continually stir things up in an intelligent and determined way.
I do not exclude the possibility that we may still need to continue as a social movement for decades both in and outside of parliament, but it is our aim to make ourselves redundant as soon as possible. But until the time that animals are widely respected, we must continue to do everything in our power to ensure that we keep animal welfare at the top of the political agenda.
Q: Could you briefly describe the philosophical underpinnings of your movement?
A: The party is often wrongly portrayed as just a one-issue party. People often say to me: "I'd like to speak up for the animals, but what do you do for people, healthcare, the economy and housing?"
I can assure you that standing up for animals does not mean that we are blind to other issues. In our manifesto we made 220 proposals for achieving a better society. Compassion plays a dominant role in these proposals; money is less important. We want to work towards a society where not only animals get a better life, but also farmers, townsfolk and countrymen.
Q: How do you respond to the charge that the jump from advocacy of human rights to animal rights is too great and unreasonable?
A: It is not about comparing animals, on the one hand, with people with a darker skin color, slaves, women or Jews, on the other. It is about the similarities in the way in which oppression, discrimination and, in some cases, even destruction has taken place. It is not about comparing the victims with each other, but instead the way in which they were treated and abused, and the way in which they were denied their rights or had them taken from them.
Q: Do you see your party growing to become a multi-cause, multi-platform party in the future?
A: Yes, we are a new political movement based on compassion, durability and respect to man, animals, nature and environment
Q: Since your party was formed in 2002, you've grown tremendously to a place where you have two seats in parliament. To what do you attribute this growth?
A: The Party for the Animal's common point of departure is that people unite in their joint quest to afford animals a better life, to make the existing abuses visible and discussible, and to find alternatives to stop such abuses in the future.
It is fantastic to see how people from so many different backgrounds chose to support the ideals that the Party for the Animals stands for. The concern for the weak – in this case the animal – is the bond that leads to a much greater degree of unity than any other initiative that derives from the protection of one’s own interests (that is, the interests of one's own species).
It is a fantastic experience to be part of a new movement that is not hindered by the existing impossibilities and political priorities, but instead consciously breaks through the framework. It is a movement that places key emphasis on compassion and durability, personal freedom and responsibility.
Q: It's not easy for some to take animal rights activism seriously. What has your experience in the parliament been so far? Do you find yourself fighting for legitimacy?
A: In the last debate on agriculture, 80% of the time was spent on animal welfare and animal rights for the first time in history. Does that answer your question?
Q: As a member of the parliament, what kind of legislation have you been able to pass?
A: We're just few months in parliament, but we’re on the move: animal rights will be part of the constitution, there will be a debate on factory farming, there will be a ban on mink farming, the Queen has promised not to serve foie gras anymore, and so on.
Q: How have religious individuals and organizations responded to your cause? Have you found Christians churches, in particular, more or less friendly?
A: People from all backgrounds, including Christianity, are supporting the party. We are the fastest-growing political party of the Netherlands. However, we are a secular party, so there is no special religious approach in our message.
Q: How has your Seventh-day Adventist background – with its emphasis on vegetarianism, wholistic living, care for creation, and so on – had an impact on your founding and leadership of the Party for the Animals?
A: In fact, first I was an animal activist and founder of the Party for the Animals. After that (in 2006) I became a Seventh-day Adventist, because it’s a church with compassion and care for our planet.
This interview was conducted in September 2007.
Read Marianne Thieme's Wikipedia profile here.
Search
Recent Comments
- Monte on Southern California Conference to Spend 1 Million to Televangelize LA
- Monte Sahlin on We Ministers Have Professional Standards Too!
- throughthestorm on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Alexander Carpenter on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Dave Firnkoess on Workers of Weimar & Amazing Facts Unite!
- JB on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Alexander Carpenter on Before He Speaks: Pastors' Wives Get Their Day Via YouTube Parody
- Stephanie on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Thomas on Because nobody expected the ET inquisition?
- Samuel Sukaton on Adventist Political Hopeful Speaks to Neo-Nazi Group
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Julius
Great interview! I am particularly interested in her last answer. I had supposed that Marianne was first a SDA and then an animal activist. But it was actually the other way around. "I became a Seventh-day Adventist," she says, "because it’s a church with compassion and care for our planet." Do you know anything more about this?
Dave
Reading this interview filled me with joy and hope- truly a pleasure! Thank you for bringing Marianne to our attention Julius and thank you Marianne for your work!
Incredibly inspiring- thank you!
I live in the United States, and it's so inspirational to see a woman who cares about animals in a position of power.
Great interview. It is refreshing and inspiring to know that such politicians exist and are even thriving!
She seems such an amazing discovery. Thank you for highlighting this woman on Spectrum.
I'm all for animal rights and all (I love my 80lb shepherd/akida), but "giving animals a voice and a place in our legal system" seems a wee bit over the top, eh?
And I feel a whole lot better knowing that her party "is not about comparing animals, on the one hand, with people with a darker skin color, slaves, women or Jews, on the other." That's reassuring!
Cliff
Don't animals already have a place in our legal system? Shouldn't people who believe in creation care about getting the animals more proection from the law? How come so many who say they believe in creation make fun of those who are trying to help God's creatures? It doesn't add up to me.
The Sabbath command binds us to extend the experience of shalom and liberation to animals. So, Seventh-day Adventists, as Sabbath keepers AND as aspirers of the original, vegan diet, should be at the forefront of animal rights and stewardship.
The editor of the *Sabbath* School Bible Study Guide must surely understand this :)
OK -- treading softly here -- but this is a real paradigm rattler for me. This seems symptomatic of the sort of worries a really well off and wealthy society can indulge itself in. I mean, how many third world (hope that’s not offensive) countries have the luxury of worrying about stuff like this? When my parents were missionaries in Africa, and when they traveled, when they were guests they were offered the best: and that was animal protein. And they graciously thanked their hosts and ATE those animals; to the horror of we children. For WE knew mom and dad did NOT eat meat! We certainly didn’t!
And I’m really curious to know how all our animal rights folks here process the whole sacrificial system as portrayed in the bible which seem to so symbolically point to the death of the Christ. Here we have God commanding his poor, migrant, wandering people to KILL animals in very explicit and specific ways for very specific purposes; all of which we to point, symbolically, to…. the Christ. I’m wondering, in your paradigm, what’s up with that??
More, I’m well aware that the intent and purpose of the Christ, when He came to us, was to upend and demolish the hierarchical system of dominance and oppression. That was His mission. And, in the context of Genesis where Adam and Eve are given dominion over the creation, this seems to implicitly refer to humans. Humans created in the image of God. This need not demean the “lesser” animals (is it OK to call them “lesser”??) but it seems apparent that the human species (6K years or Six eons of unimagined length; same deal) was seen as the crowning and superior act of God. So, what gives here??
Of course I can not dismiss this post out of hand; because dominion over may in fact mean the responsibility to protect and care for… and the Sabbath command explicitly includes the beasts who toiled for their master. But me, I’m from a more primitive understanding; one where, within the animal kingdom there really IS a sort of hierarchy. (What WAS Jesus thinking when He actually ate FISH with the boys… And I hope none delude themselves that He didn’t eat of the sacrifices offered too… Wasn’t that the custom then??)
Lastly, I have heard rumor of an EGW quote which says something to the effect that in the last days, there will return such a respect for life -- all life -- that it would be inconceivable that animals would be eaten… Does anyone have this quote? I’ve given up at finding it.
When the same compassion toward animals is given human life--life that is abused, dominated over and traded into slavery, then I will be able to treat them as equals.
Having had many animal pets over the years, they were always well-treated. However, NEVER, were they considered to have "rights" or the other freedoms that humans were initially given. Animals do not have free will and are not able to make moral decisions. That should be sufficient never to equate them with humans.
Speaking as an animal lover (and occasional activist), compassion for all forms of life is important, and that's what I hear Thieme articulating. Undoubtedly the luxury to extend compassion to animals is a rich-country issue, but it's not an exclusive gesture; people who care for animals almost always extend that compassion to people first. I'll wager that animal rights activists are also typically well-informed and involved in ways to alleviate suffering for people in other (or local) parts of the world. (And the reverse is very frequently true as well--people who mistreat animals or think of them just as commodities often treat people the same.)
And, although I'm a vegetarian, I'm not someone who thinks the whole world has to be vegan. It seems improbable, not to mention an idea that would probably have lots of unintended consequences (like the near-extinction of farm animals). However, I am a firm believer in ethical farming practices, which means that all of our animal products (even milk, yogurt and egss) should cost us a lot more than they do, and we should consume a lot less of them. Mechanized, factory-farming should be what goes extinct. (And I'm speaking as someone who spent three years working at a poultry as a teenager.) These ethical concerns about our food choices should extend beyond animals though, even though that's a logical place to start--what about the people who pick our strawberries? What about the shuttering of family farms in the face of large, corporate farms?
Hi Bob,
With the family in Colorado skiing. Absolutely beautiful. Flyinn in an airplane at 40,000 feet, in the middle of the ocean, and in the Rockies has a wonderful way of seeing that we are but as the sands of the sea...quite insignificant except for God's grace.
You are probably aware of the quote in Early Writings (EW) that those who eat meat will not be translated (as I recall from memory...perhaps close by will be your quote of interest?)
I have a problem with EGW on that EW quote as well as Alcohol under all situations being prohibited. I find no scriptural support for either position.
I believe in "quick non-cruel humane" death of animals. The recent episode and photos in California was atrocious.
Perhaps embedded in a lot of "extreme" positions is pantheism
which is most likely humanities "natural religion" which ultimately leads to self worship and humanity being hailed as it's own "God."
Pat
PS. (From the hotel computer)
Uhhhh… maybe we can dispense with the “I love my pets” sentiments here as prelude to some sort of “animal rights” dogma? I have some very close family/friends who have farms in the west/northwest and they pour their very souls into their livestock. Each animal has a name; given them at birth… a birth which THEY have attended. And often at 2 AM. These farm folks of mine are extraordinarily in touch with life; it’s rhythms and its tragedies. And when it goes bad, they weep like fools and babies. Why they will sit up all night to attend and help birth a difficult lamb, or foal, or calf, which will ultimately be sold at market, and have the audacity to walk around half asleep next day with a sober sense of triumph, and then pour their very souls into that beast for the next 3 or 4 or 5 months, is something I cannot comprehend. (The cynical, of course, will see nothing but economic advantage here…)
BUT, to be fair to both them, AND my “animal rights” SDA politician written about here, I’ve got to take pause; me, this city boy who hates getting cow poop (that’s not, of course, what they call it) on his boots. I’d rather wager this Dutch politician rarely sets foot on a farm to do this hard work of birthing baby animals. Yet she acts as our moral superior in this regard. WHAT am I missing here? Again, an indulgence of the too well off...
Will I be having steak dinners in heaven? More than likely not. Nor do I imagine I will miss them. But in the meantime, we live here; on planet earth. Where the moral economy of the fall has dictated that large swaths of humanity depend upon animal protein for survival. Were I a poor, third world SDA, this particular post would anger me, perhaps, more than most. I would see it as arrogance of the highest order… Of course, this sort does not darken the doorway of this, our benighted site. (though if they did, I’ve no doubt you would welcome them… you are good folk here too… ) Does God really call us to this sort of arrogant and indulgent luxury in the face of human starvation??
Can someone here please provide a bit more compelling and serious context than what has heretofore been offered?
Can't help ya, Bob. I just saw an article naming Denmark as the happiest country on earth, so, maybe they really do have the luxury of having a political party devoted to animal rights. (http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness)
As to animal rights activists necessarily being interested in human rights - nope. Not if you count PETA. I'll never forget the quote I heard from Bill Maher regarding animal experimentation ("To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off."). http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1360
I have a friend who loves animals very dearly, and is doing doctoral work in immunology. She has an auto-immune disease that she would like to work toward minimizing for others who have the same condition. Her experiments on animals sometimes cause her great distress, but there is a stark difference between the life of a lab rat and the life of a human. Period.
I *do* know animal lovers/rights activists that have [what seem to me to be] more acceptable priorities. Not equating the mistreatment of human life with that of another animal, but noting that all life should be cared for as much as possible. So, I would not lay what *I* view as insulting behavior at the door of all animal rights activists, but say that those that align themselves with PETA may not be aware of the extremes to which the organization will go.
Back on topic, it's lovely to see someone who was drawn to the church by a common interest in treating the earth and its inhabitants well. I would love for us to be well-known for this around the world.
jen*
Thanks for that link, Jen--maybe those Dutch really are on to something! Peta-types do take things to extremes, and I don't think it's at all comparing apples to apples to put them in Thieme's same category. To speak in terms folks here can readily identify with, it seems like lumping all folks with Adventist roots in with the Branch Davidians.
Bob, the type of family farming you're talking about is the type of farming I (the animal rights vegetarian) support too. I have a good friend and former colleague whose family has a farm in South Dakota. They work very hard to raise a small head of cattle every year, and those cows live a good bovine life. There's a world of difference between those types of farms and the factory farms where animals live their entire lives in cages often without enough room to turn around. The poultry where I worked as a teenager housed ten chickens in a cage the size of of my dish rack--it was a miserable life. (I always found it highly ironic that this Adventist boarding school with a vegetarian cafeteria shipped the old hens off to KFC when their egg-laying days were done.) You don't have to join PETA to be against factory farms and for sustainable, responsible, and ethical farming practices that treat animals, people, and the planet with compassion.
And, yes, back to this thread...It is indeed lovely to see someone who was drawn to Adventism for its priorities of compassion.
David - Sorry for a late response to your question. The short answer (which I could have given you when we met early this morning) is: I don't know. I'd be happy to share with you the unedited version of the interview which is twice as long as this (and Alita did a brilliant job of editing it down), but it doesn't let us know more.
Because I sensed that she didn't want to be identified as an Adventist politician, but a politician who happens to be an Adventist, I chose not to focus on her Adventism but what she, an Adventist, is doing in the world. Perhaps in a couple of years another interview could be conducted focusing on her Adventist experience.
Now, a general comment. I agree with Daneen that the discussion here, especially the comments critical of her, has tended to lump her with the extreme. I don't think that's fair. I don't fully agree with her, but I think those who hold the dominant view of animals should give people like her and others who hold minority views room to speak in powerful, even at times seemingly shrill, manner to get our attention. They need to utilize sharper rhetoric to get their point across, so we "tolerate" people like Sharpton, Tancredo, Nader, and others. Now and then, these "prophetic" types really have important truths to offer us and we have to listen. Anyhow, that's my two lepta.
Yo Cliff, there is, of course, tza'ar ba'alei chayim - the Jewish law preventing the cruelty to animals.
Just wanted to add here that even in a culture where animals were ritually slaughtered (prob. still kinder than factory farming) OT law includes several injunctions that provide animals with legal protections similar to humans. Now I've read too much textual criticism not to point out that this was, in part, because these animals were human property, from whence derived their value, that said, I think that with additional study one could make a fair-minded but literalistic case that animals received legal and ethical consideration.
After a quick search:
Deut. 25:4 says not to "muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain."
Prov. 12:10 tells us "a righteous man regards the life of his animal."
And, of course, Ex. 20:10 commands that animals get to rest from work on Sabbath as humans do.
Daneen,
My point was not that PETA = Thieme. Just that your assertion: "...that animal rights activists are also typically well-informed and involved in ways to alleviate suffering for people in other (or local) parts of the world" could be seen differently depending on which groups you considered as including in the 'animal rights activist' family.
PETA may be a less palatable example of animal rights activism, but they are a very visible/active/well-known segment. Perhaps even more well known than Branch Davidians - I don't know.
I certainly believe that animals and the rest of creation should be treated with respect and care. And I'm glad the Dutch have reached a point where animal rights can be a higher priority. My views on animal testing for scientific/medical research differ from most activists, but I think the world is big enough for us all.
jen*
I'm really glad to see what Ms. Thieme is doing, especially in calling attention to the factory farm issue--a terrible blot on our modern world. (Has anyone read the 2002 book "Dominion" by Matthew Scully--about the sheer and extreme cruelty of factory farming? Or Jon Robbin's older "Diet for a New America"?)
But another issue here is the use of dwindling fragile resources. If the crops, energy, and copious amounts of fresh water used in the "production" of meat were devoted to human needs, we could feed a lot more people and also avoid water shortages, etc., even in "third-world" countries. This is a fact--look it up!
Good discussion!
Hi Anon. and Bob...
Definitely off the main topic... I too have had a problem with the EGW quote concerning all who are preparing to be translated will be eating a vegan diet.
Jesus, in a glorified state, ate broiled fish.
Nuff said!
Frank
Hi Pat!
Didn't realize you were Anonymous. Again, I find myself on your wavelenght. Enjoy your vacation!
frank
Again, animal rights is one thing, but a whole political party based on it? Come on!
Eric
Its so wonderful when eminent Adventists bear a good witness:
http:// adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/priming-pump.html
Eric-- I suppose your "eminent Adventist" is yours truly. My point is not to be against animal rights. I guess in a world where millions of humans die every year of disease, famine, war and so forth, worrying about how gerbils are treated, and even starting a whole party based on it, seems a bit much, that's all.
Eric--that's the second time I've seen you post a link to that anonymous (always a bad sign), poorly-done-attempt-at-satire, anti-Adventist website without so much as a real comment on a thread where it has no bearing (not sure it ever would). If you have comments, make them here, and stop trying to bump up the Google ratings of your blog.
Eric,
The website you are posting is garbled and written in a barely intelligble manner. I'd rather hear your own comments than be directed to a badly constructed polemic.
Frank
Frank,
Thanks for your thoughts above. We had a great skiing vacation at Copper Mountain in the Majestic Rockies with family. I was Annon. on this strand because I did not have my password with me.
Cliff
I also believe we should treat animals with respect and kindness but this reminds me a bit of the tendency of some to “leaning” towards “deep ecology” philosophy which I do not believe is consistent and proportional with scripture understanding. I believe this SDA politician and others should have an awareness of the extreme hyper-environmentalism movement. There are limits, I believe, to some good aspects of environmental and animal concerns as you point out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology
pat
Pat, which books by deep ecologists have you read?
Any Wendell Berry? I see him listened there. He's a favorite of mine, especially his A Timbered Choir: The Sabbath Poems and his Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Christ's Teachings of Love, Compassion, and Forgiveness. Of course there is the classic: Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community.
I spent part of my teenage years in the logging communities of Northeastern Washington, a place where teachers brought their favorite hunting calls to class, taught creation in my public high school, and we kids boxed in Boise-Cascade run towns where shops advertised their commitment: we eat creamed spotted owl.
In light of this real world, I smile at the "tough" stance on gerbils or the concern for deep ecology in the comments above. I'll be frank: that's the classic ambiguous "limits" worry of folks who don't know what their talking about. I don't mean that rudely, I mean it in the literal sense. How often have the worriers read the actually ideas of the environmental movement? I recommend Grist.
http://www.grist.org/topic/environmental_movement
Now that I work in the green movement, join in strategy calls with the Union of Concerned Scientists and the NRDC, gather support for the Lieberman/Warner Bill, it makes me smile to see language like "hyper-environmentalism."
In fact, that sense of the movement seems a bit extreme.
Why? It's like starting to talk about the Adventism of Loma Linda University Church and the other person acting concerned and saying, "well, you should have an awareness of the extreme of the hyper-Shepard's Rod movement."
The chance is higher that Houteff's theology will stick in the Pavilion Sabbath School than Cliff's "gerbil limit" will be broken by deep ecology.
There are always wackos in any movement, but the vast majority of environmentalists put their pants on like the rest of America and Holland. I have disagreements with some deep ecological thinking, namely the reactionary understanding of Christian stewardship (they should separate the dominion from the faith) and their definition of inherent falls apart in antifoundationalism.
There are plenty of problems among the green ranks -- too white, lack of effective coordination, constant tension between personal change vs. public change theories -- but I'd be happy to read actual scriptural or scientific arguments proving a deep hyper-ness.
Until then, I wonder: is it extreme to personally choose to not eat factory farmed meat?
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/
Andrews University is very very proud of it's dairy farm- our cows produce tons of excellent milk, it's a positive cash flow. Southern College is in the pocket of McKee Little Debbie Industries, they say. The opposite of health food.
Caring about animals is fine. Caring about humans is better. Caring about the cash apron strings that entangle us from moving forward to better health for both- probably the hardest first step.
Hi Arlyn,
While it is true that money can be the tail that wags the dog, I am not sure the illustration fits here and I am a bit confused with the comment.
Is it wrong for Andrews to have dairy cows that make the milk and "skim milk" for a profit even though they fart methane? To me that position is extremism both on an economic or ecological platform.
Do I hear you correctly implying that it is wrong to mass produce sweets or to eat an occassional peice of apple pie pastry or a "little debbie" piece of fudge or oatmeal cookie?
The issue is balance and moderation it seems to me.
If we are going to weight an argument...when it comes to health, is it better to have a balanced diet and eat moderate meat in that diet and be at one's proper weight or be a vegetarian and 40 pounds overweight?
Whether the meat or non meat diet, I suggest the overweight aspect carries the greatest health danger and violation of one's being temperate in all things.
Please feel free to correct my misunderstanding of your meaning.
Regards
Building strawmen? Which is worse--then pit one against the other. The old saying "Money Talks" is still true. SDA colleges need money, lots of it. The official school industries help to pay some expenses, hopefully. The McKee Bakery is a private industry, isn't it? It also provides work for students, doesn't it? It also ships its products all over the U.S. and perhaps further. One always has the choice to drink milk or eat "Little Debbie's." Should an industry produce for those who DO eat such food? Isn't that what choice is all about?
Yes, I've heard that the McKee money has had, and continues to have a large influence on Southern. There are two powerful forces: political and financial. The church administration has liberally used its political clout in decisions it makes that influence the lives of its members. Large financial contributors influence the actions of church administration. Whether it is appropriate or not, what part does the average member play in these decisions? That's what a hierarchy is and does: they are the "Deciders" and members either fall in line, or drop out.
Hi there!
Thanks for this interview which show that you can be an SDA and a politician, in spite of what some SDA's thought in the past.
I red that Marianne Thieme recently started a Worldlog in 9 languages, to tell about the grassroots work of the Party for the Animals. www.partyfortheanimals.nl
And she has made a documentary about meat eating and its environmental effects: all cars, trucks, trains, plains and ships in the world combined exhaust less greenhouse gasses than factory farming!
At this moment Thieme is making an international version of the documentary which is an 'erratum' on an inconvenient truth of Al Gore, which shal be shown this summer in London, New York, LA, Brussels,Sao Paulo, Madrid, Sydney, Dresden, Beijing, Singapore, Taipei and Fortaleza.
Wouldn't it be nice to show the documentary also at Loma Linda? www.meatthetruth.nl and www.ngpf.nl (see also review in English of one of the biggest newspapers in The Netherlands
http://www.ngpf.nl/content/view/129)
Hi all
What a great interview and congratulations to Marianne for taking this stand. Much of the world's problems (hunger, environmental, water, etc) could be easily solved overnight by everyone being vegetarian. SDAs had the answers over a 100 years ago, something we should be proud of. This is related to the rights of animals.
Everyone should get a copy of "The Ethics of what we eat" by Peter Singer. After reading this, I challenge anyone to keep eating meat.
regards
Robin
Sydney, Australia
Post new comment